Actually the physician's suggestion was not quite to starve some to death, simply end their lives through abortion to save the others. Doesn't that come back to the same basically. Supreme Court is where the decisions are to be made and not at the provincial level (political and financial implications would be too tempting).
Religion should not deprive children from having an equal chance at life, under some circumstances (abuse or neglect) children need protection from their parents or custodians. This protection can and should be obtained only through Court rulings not simply a PM deciding which option is right. We should not minimize the consequences of imposing a treatment that is not acceptable under the parent's beliefs be they religious or moral. Who's children are they the parent's or the State's.
Not getting into specifics for premature sextuplets what IF the option enforced by the PM is not the right one. If transfusion is the ONLY alternative to save the children but implies that they would have to live with the consequences and risks associated with transfusions would It still be all right? I don't agree.
Should transfusion be the ONLY alternative to save my own life would I then accept a transfusion. NO. Under NO circumstance.
Do I agree to violate the parent's right NO unless the parent is unfit or neglecting their children which is not the case here, and then only through a Judge not a PM.